The Portuguese Jews of Amsterdam excommunicate Baruch Spinoza. His crimes included equating God with "nature," denying free will ("everything happens from necessity"), arguing that the Torah was written by men, and insisting that men can be more ethical without God than with him.The congregation, having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Spinoza, have endeavored by various means and promises to turn him from his evil ways. However, having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practiced and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and borne witness to this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became convinced of the truth of this matter. After all of this has been investigated in the presence of the honorable hakhamim [“wise men,” or rabbis], they have decided, with the [rabbis’] consent, that the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel. By decree of the angels and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of the entire holy congregation, and in front of these holy scrolls with the 613 precepts which are written therein; cursing him with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho and with the curse which Elisha cursed the boys and with all the castigations which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him, but the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven. And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law. But you that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day. We order that no one should communicate with him orally or in writing, or show him any favor, or stay with him under the same roof, or within four ells of him, or read anything composed or written by him.
I find excommunications fascinating. They use the most dramatic and exalted religious rhetoric to accomplish the most petty ends.
5 comments:
Are their ends here really that petty? They seem to be arguing with Spinoza over religious truth.
But did excommunicating him help them in the argument? Or does it just make them look like sore losers? So far as I am aware, most of the Jews I know are closer to Spinoza's views than those of the people who expelled him. I don't think that any of the Catholics I know are really orthodox in their faith. Should they all be cast out?
The text suggests he was cast out for spreading his ideas (and, in effect, leading the community astray). In any case, I'm not saying the rabbis were right--I'm not sure I would say anyone in this circumstance was "right," since Spinoza may have been just as intolerant as they. I'm just saying they weren't being petty. It's not like they were excommunicating him for disputing their mill-rights, or for insulting a rabbi's daughter. Arguably, they're giving him the respect of taking his ideas seriously.
I understand what you mean -- these are fundamental questions. I just find the act of excommunication sort of like taking your ball and going home because you are losing. We can't convince you, but we are the authorities so we are going to say that nobody can talk to you or come within arm's length of you. Take that, heretic. Of course the eventual result in this case was to make Spinoza even more sure that he was right, leading him to publish his work in Latin with Christian publishers. Take that, rabbis.
It's true that to an outsider this excommunication can look petty, but of course for the rabbis, this would be a dispute about truths so fundamental that good sportsmanship was irrelevant. Spinoza to them was wrong, and wrong about something so important that permitting him to express his wrong--or perhaps more exactly, permitting members of the community to communicate with him--was a danger to the community. To be fair to the rabbis, this was not something they did in most disputes. Arguing was in fact the foundation of rabbinical training (as it was with the training of medieval Catholic theologians). Perhaps the savagery of the excommunication reflects this argumentative tradition. It's a way of saying, "you've gone beyond the pale. Usually we're good sports, but not this time." It's a bit like the US insisting on unconditional surrender in WWII, but not during, say, the Spanish-American War.
Post a Comment